THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WESLEY J. BRUXVOORT,
STEVEN J. KEIPERT, FRED B. McCORMICK,
JERRY W. WILLIAMS and BRADFORD B. WRIGHT
______________
Appeal No. 95-1622
Application 07/890,5931
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WEIFFENBACH and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 2 through 25. 2 Claim 2 is illustrative of the claims on appeal
1 Application for patent filed May 21, 1992. The real party in interest appears to be Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Co.
2 We observe that appealed claim 3 has been clerically deleted from the application. This appears to
have occurred upon the clerical entry of the amendment of March 11, 1994 (Paper No. 7) which
canceled original claim 1 and amended original claim 2 but which contained no direction to cancel
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007